Does R2P matter? Interpreting the impact of a norm

Glanville, Luke

doi:10.1177/0010836715612850

Cited by 28 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While previous applications of the norm contestation framework in the field of security have substantively dealt with the organising principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), local ownership has not received the same interest (see for instance Glanville, 2015;Hofmann, 2015;Welsh, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership

Klossek

2019

Norm Research in International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peacebuilding has become a central activity to the international community's pursuit of sustainable peace. The rising number of violent conflicts over the last decades and the increasing complexity of conflict scenarios have contributed to this development (Strand, Rustad, Urdal & Nygård, 2019). With conflict centres remaining in many parts of the world, such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen or South Sudan, it is likely that the urge for the international community to engage in peacebuilding activities will not end any time soon. Given the weakening of a shared understanding over the right tools to address conflicts and a diversification of actors, we can thereby see an increasing contestation over the norms guiding peacebuilding endeavours. One of these contested norms is the norm of local ownership, i.e. the importance to include the 'local' into peacebuilding processes to achieve sustainable peace. The European Union has enthusiastically embraced this norm but has been challenged by other countries and the literature in regard to its inability to successfully implement it (Bojicic-Dzelilovic & Martin, 2018; Dursun-Ozkanca & Vandemoortele, 2012; Ejdus, 2017; Mac Ginty, 2018). The 'new' actors on the scene such as the BRICS and other countries from the global south have argued that the European Union and other traditional donors are not moving beyond their liberal peacebuilding approaches, which are often tied to a heavy external intervention in the sovereignty of the host state and hence in their eyes fail to ensure local participation (De Carvalho & De Coning, 2013). At the same time, these new donors have claimed for themselves that their southsouth partnerships are more successful in engaging the local population on a horizontal level (Brasilia Declaration, 2010; United Nations, 2018a). India has been The original version of this chapter was revised: It has been changed to open access under a CC BY 4.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership

Klossek

2019

Norm Research in International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…International Relations (IR) scholars have debated for a while whether, and if so how much, the R2P has been consolidating or weakening over the years (Bellamy and Dunne, 2016; Bellamy, 2015; Crossley, 2018; Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, 2020; Thakur, 2013). While earlier debate entries questioned whether the norm played any role in the decision-making processes of international security organizations (Hehir, 2010), newer entries demonstrated the considerable extent to which the norm has shaped policy responses in the face of gruesome atrocities (Glanville, 2016; Nahlawi, 2019; Welsh, 2021). However, some of these policy responses raised significant controversy themselves.…”

Section: Prior Research and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2011, a military intervention was carried out in Libya—under the premise of the norm—averting ensuing humanitarian catastrophe but eventually leaving it with ongoing civil strife. Observing the aftermath of the Security Council resolution, many scholars wondered again what the intervention would mean for the norm’s legacy (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, 2020; Gholiagha, 2015; Glanville, 2016; Hehir, 2012; Hehir, 2013; Morris, 2013; Thakur, 2013). While Alex J. Bellamy and Jess Gifkins viewed R2P as unharmed (Bellamy, 2015; Gifkins, 2016), many argued that R2P had suffered existential reputation costs (Brockmeier et al, 2016; Evans, 2014; Cronogue, 2012; Mamdani, 2011; Pape, 2012; Thakur, 2013: 72), leaving the norm diminished if not obliterated (Hehir, 2013; Hehir, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unbowed, unbent, unbroken? Examining the validity of the responsibility to protect

Scherzinger¹

2022

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How has the sentiment around the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) changed over time? Scholars have debated far and wide whether the political norm enjoys widespread discursive acceptance or is on the brink of decline. This article contends that we can use sentiment analysis as an important indicator for norm validity. My analysis provides three crucial insights. First, despite the well-known fear of some scholars, R2P is still frequently invoked in Security Council deliberations on issues of international peace and security. Second, overall levels of affirmative language have remained remarkably stable over time. This finding indicates that R2P is far from being obliterated. Out of 130 states, 4 international organizations (IOs), and 2 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) invoking the norm, 65% maintain a positive net-sentiment. Third, zooming into Libya as a case illustration of a critical juncture, we see some minor tonal shifts from some pivotal member states. Adding the fact that interest constellations within the Permanent Five are heterogeneous concerning the third pillar of R2P, future military interventions, sanctioned under the norm, seem unlikely.

show abstract

“…The classic paradigm of sovereignty is challenged by the more recent notion of the "responsibility to protect" (R2P). A recent international set of principles about the need to respond to mass atrocities when a home government is unable or unwilling, debate about the efficacy of humanitarian intervention goes from the optimistic (Glanville, 2015) to the pessimistic (Hehir, 2010). Shannon (2005) points to the differing views of legitimate meaning of humanitarian crises and how to respond to them in the Balkans.…”

Section: Norm Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Norms and Foreign Policy

Shannon¹

2017

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International norms exist as constraints on foreign policy, yet norms are also the product of the foreign policies of states and other actors. Research has demonstrated how norms restrain foreign policy choice and behavior, and even alter state conceptions of national interests. Other studies point to the weakness of norms in the face of national interests and state power. Others note that the meaning of norms and their obligations are often contested, leading to problems of norm violation and norm enforcement. As social constructions, an important consideration is how and when foreign policy promotes norms and norm diffusion in the broader international community.

show abstract

Does R2P matter? Interpreting the impact of a norm

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership

India’s ‘Silent Contestation’ of the EU’s Perspective on Local Ownership

Unbowed, unbent, unbroken? Examining the validity of the responsibility to protect

International Norms and Foreign Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About